The use of door security devices is well known in the prior art. Most of the door security devices being utilized require the use of keys, magnetic cards, smart cards, or the knowledge of a tumbler combination, which puts a burden on the user to retain either the keys, cards, or memorize the tumbler combination. If the door security device does not require the aforementioned keys, cards, or combinations, the security of the device is based on a non positive mechanical securing of the door, however, as the door security is not positive it can be disabled by merely loosening the mechanism that attaches the door security device to the door. A prior art example would be in U.S. Pat. No. 5,934,718 to La Valle that discloses an entertainment system cabinet locking device that includes a front extant and a planar configuration having an inverse “U” configuration that straddles between and over a pair of thinner type glass cabinet doors. The La Valle door clip that straddles between the cabinet doors and also between the door magnetic latches is merely a frictional type of clip that goes over the top edges of the doors, which does not provide positive security. Another prior art example is in U.S. Pat. No. 4,372,592 to Beese that discloses a locking device with a “U” shaped cross section for use with bi fold section type doors. The “U” shaped channel in Beese slips over the top of the bi fold doors while they are open resting upon a singular door section and when the bi fold doors are closed the channel is slid over the top edge to straddle two adjacent door sections, wherein a clip inserts between the two doors to prevent the channel from sliding axially, thus locking the doors in a shut position. However, in Beese as in La Valle this is just a frictional lock and not a positive security system for holding the bi fold door shut. Further, in U.S. Pat. No. 5,984,386 to Clemens disclosed is a portable public restroom door holding device for use when the restroom door has an inoperative or broken latch. Clemens has a “C” section having a pair of extension figures that fit over the top of the door and between the fixed doorpost structure. This door holding device has frictional gripping edges to more firmly stay in place in between the door in the post, however, is again not a positive security device.
A slightly more positive door securing device prior art example would be in U.S. Pat. No. 4,915,430 to Vitale that discloses a tamper resistant latch for glass doors, as in an entertainment system. Again, Vitale utilizes a “U” shaped bracket having an extension with an expanded end that slidably engages a latch slot to secure the door in the closed position. An option is also provided for a spring loaded expanded end to snap the door closed. However, Vitale is somewhat similar to Beese in that simply sliding the “U” shaped bracket releases the door to be open again making the latch not a positive security device. In U.S. Pat. No. 5,203,597 to Wheelock a universal lock is disclosed for use on doors, with the concept of preventing small children from gaining access to opening the door. Wheelock includes a pair of slidably engaged beams that telescopically engage, each having an opposing perpendicularly oriented bracket utilizing a thumbscrew fixing the distance between the perpendicularly oriented brackets on the telescopically engaged portion. The only somewhat positive security that Wheelock provides is to have the thumbscrew only be able to be loosened by a special type of wrench, however, this brings again the disadvantage similar to having to have a conventional key for a lock. Further, in U.S. Pat. No. 4,082,334 to Volta et al. being similar to Vitale disclosed is an interior security device for double doors that includes a plate that extends beyond the door knobs or handles having slots that slidably engage the neck portions of the handles with the slots narrower than the expanded end portions of the handles in order to secure the pair of door handles and thus the doors. Volta et al. is not necessarily secure as it can be simply slid off the door handle necks allowing for the doors to be opened, and especially in the case of a child would take a very minor amount of imagination on a child's part to disable the Volta et al. device. Similar to Volta et al. in U.S. Design Pat. No. D418,038 to Scott utilized is a bar or a beam that simply slidably engages the neck portions of the door handles, however, allowing the bar beam to simply be slid off of the neck portions to be able to open the doors. Also, in U.S. Pat. No. 3,583,737 to Tutikawa disclosed is a locking apparatus for swinging doors that is affixed to a stationary portion of the cabinet structure matably engaging with a pair of receptacles are engaging members attached to the doors. Tutikawa achieves a minor measure of security by having structure and linkage such that and the pair of doors may be sequenced to force one to open prior to the other. Similar to Turikawa in U.S. Pat. No. 1,013,553 to Johnson disclosed is a latch device for double doors, with the pair of cabinet doors independently latchable or in the alternative to automatically lock one of the doors when the other door is shut.
Looking at the prior art that does involve a sequence of movements to disable the door security device, European Patent Office publication number 301,143 A1 to Baines discloses a child resistant lock for a chest of drawers door that does use a sequence of a finger push mechanisms that are also sized for adult figures that would be difficult for a child to perform to unlock the mechanism. Although, Baines accomplishes the desired objective of having a child resistant lock on a door without the need for keys, cards, or combinations to be remembered, it involves a high degree of mechanical complication and complexity for economical mass production and sales.
Unfortunately, the aforementioned door security devices suffer from various disadvantages in that they do not provide positive security for keeping the door or doors shut or in a closed state without an unnecessary degree of mechanical complexity. Thus, what is needed is a door security apparatus that provides some measure of positive security for keeping the door or doors shut or in a closed state. In particular, a door security apparatus that would require a sequence of movements for removal of the apparatus from the door to allow the door to be placed in the open state. This sequence of movements would endeavor to be for the most part child proof in that a small child could not comprehend the requirement of the sequence of movements, wherein an older child or adult could comprehend the requirement of the sequence of movements thus being able to remove the door security apparatus from the door, placing the door into the open state and gaining access to the contents behind the door.